I gbet you thought you had finally heard the last of the Ted Haggard
issue? Think again. I have this feeling we are just getting
started and I think that the Lord wants us all to be informed as to how
the International Coalition of Apostles are using their new position at
the head of the National Association of Evangelicals. The following
story illustrates that point clearly, and it happened right on the heels
of Ted Haggard's election. The article is called Ted
Haggard Quickly Uses His New Presidency In The NAE - To Advance Policies
For Evangelicals On Islamby Sandy Simpson, 5/10/03.
Can we hide the truth or tell lies as a means to an end as evangelicals?
Isn't that what the Islamic scriptures instruct Muslims to do? Does
the preaching of the Gospel and discipling all nations begin and end with
the truth, or should the truth be introduced at the end? I think
most of you know the answers to these questions. Pity the people
like Ted Haggard do not.

Excellent Resources!

Hot Off The Press!

LETTERS TO THE CHURCH is a fitting
manual for the Revelation Christian. All the precepts are in the seven
letters in Revelation 1:9 - 3:22 to help us keep the faith, stay in sound
doctrine, and reach out to those who are perishing. I hope and pray that
this book will help the reader to be an “overcomer”.

Want to be able to see your way through to clear biblical discernment?
Want a set of tools that will allow you to disciple your loved ones so
they will stand firm in the Faith? Want to sort out many of the false arguments
and teachings that have invaded the churches? Then
DISCERNMENT
TOOLKIT is for you!

SPIRIT OF TRUTH OR SPIRIT OF ERROR?PART 1 - BENNY HINN features Jacob Prasch, Mike Oppenheimer &
Sandy Simpson and tons of video showing the teachings and prophecies of
Benny Hinn. This is a proven tool to keep people away from heresy.

We believe that the seriousness of doctrinal issues being introduced
by the International Coalition Of Apostles (ICA) through Ted Haggard to
the NAE and his assertions with regard to his involvement in the ICA present
a threat to the integrity of the truths of the written Word of God and
to the Gospel message.

Our second article was only out a few days before our claims had been
proven accurate. Ted Haggard immediately went into "interfaith" mode,
using his new position as the president of the NAE to promote the Dominionist
agenda of the ICA and the New Apostolic Reformation with regard to evangelism.
First, let's go back. Let me remind you what we said about Haggard
in both documents:

Ted Haggard claims that to evangelize
the Muslims "the primary goal is not to win new Christian converts but
to "serve the Islamic people."

The Rev. Ted Haggard, pastor of the 8,700-member
New Life Church along with Fred Markert, executive director of Youth With
a Mission, are going to reach the Muslims without the gospel, but by showing
their good works. Haggard said "the primary goal is not to win new Christian
converts but to "serve the Islamic people. We believe it is the role
of Christians to befriend people in the Islamic community to ensure their
peace and safety." Haggard said he wants people to "become aware of the
Islamic community and locate their needs. That includes leaving them
alone if that's what they want. Markert said the goal is to give people
a choice of religions, not force Christianity on them. He said missionaries
would provide blankets, food and other short-term relief as well as help
with long-term projects such as installing clean water systems." (Quotes
from The Gazette -Pastors issue call for missionaries to Islam 9/29/01,
http://ww2.moriel.org:8004/notice/where_were_you.htm)

This brings into question whether Ted Haggard really
understands biblical evangelism. Can an organization that has upheld true
evangelical methods embrace these new unbiblical ideas? This letter illustrates
our great concern over these new concepts influencing the Church. Our primary
goal should always be to preach the gospel and disciple all nations. Certainly
we must be available to help people in many ways. But our goal as evangelicals
is to win people to Christ that they might be saved from hell. Salvation
must always take precedence over every other goal. Is not a person's eternal
destiny the highest priority?

Ted Haggard email: I believe that it is fundamental
to the presentation of the Gospel that we serve all people, whether they
are Christian or not. Thus, if they are converted, that is wonderful and
certainly our aim. However, even if they are not converted, we still
hold their best interests at heart. The article referred to here was
written when the Islamic community in Colorado Springs was scared because
of hateful comments from Christians after 9/11, and I was assuring them
that we would protect their kids in school and their ability to shop, go
to restaurants, etc., even if they didn't become Christians. I wanted them
to know that because they live in a community with a large number of evangelical
Christians, they can feel safe.

It is a worthy goal to be concerned about the safety of the citizenry,
though that is primarily the job of government officials. But how
can you "hold their best interests at heart" if you don't witness to them?
Our job as believers is to preach the gospel, so that some might possibly
be saved some from hell. It may not be well received, but when was it ever
well received by any religion?

We need to be very careful about what we say as Christians. Evangelicals
have evangelism as their primary goal. Social action is second on
the list--very important, but still second. Fred Markert, in agreeing
with Haggard, revealed the agenda of YWAM and other NAR organizations,
which have become increasingly social and interfaith instead of evangelical.
The reason we brought this up was to show that Ted Haggard has demonstrated
clearly that he does not really understand classic evangelicalism.

This point stands.

Now this position is being brought forward as the position of the NAE
by Ted Haggard. Notice that Haggard is no longer simply billed as
the pastor of New Life Church in Colorado Springs, but as the president
of the NAE. This shows that the ICA is serious about using the positions
they gain for political power over Christian detractors, in the churches
and in the world. Here is what Charisma News Service had to say about
the current "interfaith dialog" being sought by Haggard in league with
the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD):

Pledging to heal rifts with Muslims that threaten missionary
work overseas, a leading evangelical group has condemned remarks disparaging
Islam by some high-profile Christian leaders.

In a meeting convened Wednesday with the Institute on Religion and
Democracy (IRD), a Washington, D.C.-based conservative Christian group
that often critiques mainline Protestantism, the National Association of
Evangelicals (NAE) said that the derisive comments endangered Christians
working in the Muslim world, strained already tense interfaith relations
and fed the perception in the Middle East and beyond that the war on terrorism
is a Christian crusade against Islam, the Associated Press (AP) reported.

"We must temper our speech," Ted Haggard, pastor of 9,000-strong
New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo., and president of the NAE, which
represents more than 43,000 congregations, told 40 leaders. "There has
to be a way to do good works without raising alarms."

One NAE leader told "The New York Times" that Wednesday's comments
were a "loving rebuke" to colleagues. Last year, evangelist Franklin Graham,
Jerry Vines, past president of the Southern Baptist Convention, Baptist
preacher Jerry Falwell and Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson all
criticized Islam or Muhammad.

Haggard suggested holding a meeting with Falwell, Robertson and
the others. "We've got to have an attitude of how can we serve,
how can we help," said Clive Calver, president of World Relief, NAE's relief
and development agency, the AP reported. "Saying Islam is evil isn't going
to help any of us."

Let's recall what Franklin Graham said about Islam, even in his softened
comments on Islam in Charisma. Ted Haggard says Graham and others must
"temper (their) speech)" on the subject of Islam.

Evangelist Franklin Graham has softened his criticism of
Islam after coming under fire for calling the religion evil. In a column
in "The Wall Street Journal" this week, Graham said he did not believe
that Muslims were evil people because of their faith, "but I decry the
evil done in the name of Islam," reported the Associated Press (AP).

The president of Christian relief group Samaritan's Purse
and head of his father's Billy Graham Evangelistic Association sparked
a storm of protest last month when he called Islam "wicked and violent."
His comments were disavowed by the White House, which has repeatedly stressed
that Islam is a peaceful religion.

Writing in the "Journal" to give a "more complete picture" of his
views, which had been "greatly misunderstood," Graham said that evil
had been done in the name of other religions, including Christianity. But,
he added, "the persecution or elimination of non-Muslims has been a cornerstone
of Islamic conquests and rule for centuries."

The Quran provided "ample evidence that Islam encourages violence
in order to win converts and to reach the ultimate goal of an Islamic world,"
he added. Ibraham Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic
Relations, said Graham's column was "obviously an attempt to deflect criticism,"
reported the AP. (Evangelist Softens Criticism Of Islam, News Brief,
Charisma News Service, December 05, 2001 edition)

So who is right here? People like Franklin Graham who denounce Islam
as a religion that promotes violence, or the White House, Ted Haggard and
other liberals who claim Islam is peaceful and we must not make comments
like these?

Interestingly, in the same issue of Charisma News Service that featured
the edict of Ted Haggard, there was this story:

SAN'A, Yemen (May 10, 2003 3:26 p.m. EDT) - A Yemeni
court sentenced a suspected al-Qaida militant to death Saturday for killing
three U.S. missionaries, according to his lawyer. Abed Abdul
Razak Kamel, 30, was sentenced in the Dec. 30 shooting deaths of Kathleen
A. Gariety of Wauwatosa, Wis., Martha C. Myers of Montgomery, Ala., and
William E. Koehn of Kan., according to Kamel's lawyer, Mahrous Oqba. Donald
W. Caswell, of Levelland, Texas, was wounded in the attack. The verdict
was handed down in Jibla, 125 miles south of the Yemeni capital of San'a,
where the killings took place at the Southern Baptist-run hospital.
Kamel pleaded not guilty to the killings and his lawyer told The Associated
Press that he will appeal the verdict, saying it violated Islamic law.
Court officials were not immediately available for comment. Kamel,
who was arrested the day of the shooting, told an April 20 court hearing
that he coordinated the attack with Ali al-Jarallah, another suspected
Muslim extremist accused of gunning down a Yemeni politician two days before
the Jibla hospital attack. Kamel has said he had planned his attack for
18 months, and often consulted with al-Jarallah. He even scouted his target,
visiting the remote hospital often. Yemeni security officials say
they believe both Kamel and al-Jarallah belonged to a terrorist cell linked
to al-Qaida. Kamel told the court he killed the missionaries "out
of a religious duty ... and in revenge from those who converted Muslims
from their religion and made them unbelievers."Kamel said he had
learned that women were visiting the hospital to get sterilized. "This
is a violation of Islam," he said at the hearing. Jibla residents have
said the Americans never discussed religion. Yemeni law prohibits non-Muslims
from proselytizing in this overwhelmingly Muslim country. Abdel Karim Hassan,
the hospital's director, welcomed the death sentence, but said it didn't
go far enough. "He deserves even worse," Hassan told The AP. On the
day of the shooting, Kamel said he walked into the hospital with a semiautomatic
rifle hidden under his clothes and opened fire on a staff meeting involving
the Americans, firing two shots at each target. Security officials said
audiotapes with the voice of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden were found
at Kamel's house. Police also said they believed a cell Kamel belonged
to was plotting attacks against at least eight targets, including foreigners
and Yemeni politicians. The Saudi-born bin Laden has family ties to Yemen
and is believed to have strong support here. In October 2000, an explosive-laden
boat rammed into the USS Cole destroyer in the southern Yemeni port of
Aden, killing 17 U.S. sailors. The attack was blamed on al-Qaida, and ten
key suspects escaped a prison April 11 and remain at large. After the attack,
funding problems forced the Virginia-based International Missions Board
to transfer control of the Jibla hospital to a local charity. The hospital's
chief is now a Yemeni Health Ministry official, and many foreign doctors,
including Americans, still work there. (by AHMED AL-HAJ, Associated
Press, Charisma News Service, May 09, 2003 edition)

Are Muslims to use violence and kill infidels for a number of reasons?
Let's look at the facts from the Quran and other Islamic scriptures:

Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and
receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah
with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to
those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those
who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those
who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home)
by a special reward, (Quran [004.095])

Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him. (Hadith [9:57])

O ye who believe! if any from among you turn back from his Faith,
soon will Allah produce a people whom He will love as they will love Him,-
lowly with the believers, mighty against the rejecters, fighting in
the way of Allah, and never afraid of the reproaches of such as find fault.
That is the grace of Allah, which He will bestow on whom He pleaseth. And
Allah encompasseth all, and He knoweth all things. (Quran [005.054])

Whoever seeks other than Islam as his religion, it will not be accepted
from him, and in the hereafter he will be with the losers ... Slay
the idolators [non-Muslims] wherever ye find them, and take them captive,
and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. Fight against such
of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor
the last Day … Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive
with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! (Sura [9:5,29,41])

Or think ye that ye shall be abandoned, as though Allah did not know
those among you who strive with might and main, and take none for friends
and protectors except Allah, His Messenger, and the (community of) Believers?
But Allah is well-acquainted with (all) that ye do. (Quran [009.016])

I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, none
has the right to be worshipped but Allah. (Al Bukhari [4:196])

O ye who believe! Take not my enemies and yours as friends (or
protectors),- offering them (your) love, even though they have rejected
the Truth that has come to you, and have (on the contrary) driven out the
Prophet and yourselves (from your homes), (simply) because ye believe in
Allah your Lord! (Quran [060.001])

(Regarding Unbelievers) Seize them and slay them wherever you find
them: and in any case take no friends or helpers from their ranks. (Sura
[4:89])

When ye travel through the earth, there is no blame on you if ye
shorten your prayers, for fear the Unbelievers May attack you: For the
Unbelievers are unto you open enemies. (Quran [004.101])

O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to
you. (Sura [9.123])

Let not the unbelievers think that they can get the better (of
the godly): they will never frustrate (them).Against them make
ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war,
to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies,
and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever
ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye
shall not be treated unjustly. (Quran [008.059-060])

Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress
limits, for Allah does not love transgressors. And slay them wherever
ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out:
For tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; But fight them not
at the sacred Mosque unless they first fight you there; But if they
fight you, Slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.
(Sura (2:190-292])

Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible
that ye dislike a thing which is good for you and that ye love a thing
which is bad for you. But God knoweth, and ye know not. (Sura [2:216])

Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given
as believe not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid not that
which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who profess not the profession
of the truth, until they pay tribute out of hand, and they be humbled.
(Sura (9:29-33])

For many more quotes on the Islamic call to conquer and kill anyone who
does not believe in Allah, go to this
article:

It is abundantly clear that Franklin Graham and others who hold his
views are correct and truthful. Those who claim Islam is a "peaceful
religion" are ill-informed or deliberately disingenuous politicians, not
evangelicals. Evangelicals don't hide the truth to make peace or
converts. Evangelicals speak the truth in love in order to win some
as converts to the Lord Jesus Christ. Our source of Truth is from
the Bible, a document written since the creation of the universe.
The Islam source of "truth" is from a document written from the words of
a false prophet 400 years after Jesus Christ died and rose again.
Christians have a very divergent worldview from Muslims. Why should
we be ashamed of that worldview? The Bible says if we are ashamed,
Jesus will be ashamed of us.

Now let's look at the elaborate plans Ted Haggard and others have to
change the way we talk about Christianity with Muslims

Evangelical leaders met Wednesday morning to consult
on Christian approaches to interfaith dialogue with Muslims.
The consultation, cosponsored by the National Association of Evangelicals
(NAE) and the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD), was designed to
examine
Christian public rhetoric about Islam, to suggest constructive ways to
speak about Islam and about their own Christian faith, and to encourage
responsible interactions between Evangelicals and Muslims, especially
in local communities across the country.

Presentations were made by Ted Haggard, President of NAE;
Diane Knippers, President of the IRD; Michael Cromartie, Vice President
of the Ethics and Public Policy Center; Paul Marshall, Senior Fellow at
the Center for Religious Freedom at Freedom House; Alan Wisdom, Vice President
of the IRD; and Clive Calver, President of World Relief.

Clive Calver of World Relief had similarly tough criticisms for some
evangelical responses to Islam. He noted an evangelical tendency
toward using “trite phraseology” that often insults Islam, and which does
not further the cause of evangelism.

He was critical of Franklin Graham’s now infamous comment about
Islam being a “wicked and evil religion.” Such comments were “inappropriate”
and inaccurate.

“We [evangelicals] are not supposed to be bitter people,” Calver
explained. But he noted that many responses to Islam by evangelicals
had indeed been so. “This is very simple. We disagree with
Islam. We are allowed to. But how we disagree is important.”
Evangelicals need to learn to “disagree without being disagreeable.”

“Globalization will force us to engage,” said Ted Haggard, president
of the National Association ofEvangelicals. “We must temper our speech.”

Haggard expressed belief that the globalizing effect of technology
will make attempts by totalitarian states to limit or control outside influences
on their citizens impossible. “We have a responsibility to help people
be better off,” Haggard explained, and such help will inevitably create
opportunities for evangelism. When people ask why we are there to
help, he said, “freedom should exist to answer.”

His comments responded to controversies over evangelical relief
and development organizations preparing to enter war-torn Iraq. Some
have expressed concerns that “proselytizing” Christians will just inflame
religious tensions. Despite this, the evangelicals in
the room were committed to dialogue and witness to Muslims, and several
commented that they would “not be ashamed of the Gospel.” (Evangelical
Leaders Meet to Discuss Christian-Muslim Relations, Erik Nelson, Institute
on Religion and Democracy (IRD), May 8, 2003)

Oh no! You mean evangelicals might actually preach the Gospel in
Iraq? What does Ted Haggard think that Christian Iraqis have been
trying to do for years, and being persecuted for it? Now he wants
evangelicals to go in there and, instead of supporting the Christians,
support the agendas and religion of Islam. This is typical for Third
Wavers posing as evangelicals. They never get it. They don't
understand that once you establish the fact that you are not going to address
the differences between Islam and Christianity, you will have laid a groundwork
you cannot overcome later. There is no time that is an opportune
and easy time to talk about Jesus Christ in an Islamic setting, unless
you are calling Jesus a good man or a prophet. To witness to the
fact that Jesus Christ is the only Son of God, in fact is God Himself,
and that He is the only way to heaven will get you killed in a hurry in
Islamic countries. That same fact got the Christians of the first
century church killed in Rome and all across the Roman Empire. Why
are we now exempt from having to make that difficult stand? In Ted
Haggard's world, "globalization" is forcing us to stop telling the truth
about Islam and Christianity!

Want more details? Here is the new NAE "evangelical" agenda from
people like Ted Haggard and the IRD:

Within the Church, Christian-Muslim relations have been
largely the concern of a small group of specialists. All that changed
on September 11, 2001. Who are Muslims? What do they believe?
What are the differences among Muslims? Can Christians and Muslims
live together peacefully in the same society? These and other questions
have fueled an outpouring of interest in education and encounters between
Christians and Muslims.

Who has over-simplified anything? Franklin Graham and others were
simply quoting the Quran. Is the Quran an over-simplification of
Islam?

The Institute on Religion and Democracy offers the following
guidelines to individuals, churches, and Christian organizations, particularly
in the West, that aspire to interact with Muslims. Suggestions, feedback,
and reports regarding efforts at dialogue are welcome.

In Christian-Muslim dialogue, it is appropriate and necessary to:

1. Seek to understand Islam and Muslim peoples. Most
U.S. churchgoers know little about Islam. If our churches are to
show Christ’s love effectively to our Muslim neighbors (near and far),
we
must clear away misconceptions and gain accurate insights into Muslim beliefs
and practices.

Who has misconceptions? Certainly not those who quote what the Quran
says about Jihad and other violence against anyone not an Islamic convert.
So is the Quran accurate or not? If so, why is it such a terrible
thing to quote what the Quran says? Are we afraid of Islamic people
quoting from the Bible? Can we or can't we defend what the Bible
says? If so, then why can't Muslims defend their Quran? If
the Quran is not accurate, what is the authoritative source of Islamic
belief? If it is not written, is it not subjective and therefore
useless for dialog?

2. Open ourselves to talk with all varieties
and stations of Muslims. Of course, we recognize that some Muslims
will decline the invitation to dialogue. But we must let them make
that choice, rather than screening our potential interlocutors for their
presumed compatibility with our own perspectives.

I believe this is a strawman argument. Who has been "screening" Islamic
people to talk about Islam? Are they talking about the media?
This could be true. But one big problem you run into in talking to
any true Muslim is that they are allowed by their "scriptures" to lie in
order to make peace. They can lie while engaged in Jihad against "infidels".
On that basis, how can we trust anything said by any Muslim?

"I do no consider it lying: A man who makes peace between
other men, a man who speaks in battle, a man speaking to his wife,
or a wife speaking to her husband " (Hadeeth of the Prophet of Allah)

If we are to make peace with the Muslims, as Haggard and his associates
suggest, how can we be sure that we are getting the truth from them on
their beliefs? I can tell you how. By reading their "scriptures".
This is clearly what Graham and others have been doing and what Haggard
and his friends are choosing to ignore. If adherents of a religion
are allowed to lie to make peace with their enemies in order to fool them,
then how can there ever be a true dialog of any kind? Somebody has
to stop lying at some point! Wouldn't it be better to preach the Gospel
to Muslims, pointing out that liars are in danger of hell fire?

Revelation 21:8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving,
the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic
arts, the idolaters and all liars— their place will be in the fiery
lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

Any true believer in Jesus Christ today recognized he is a sinner, a liar,
and in danger of hell. Are we or are we not concerned for the souls
of Islamic people who are just as dead in their sins as we were?
When will this issue of lying be brought up? After we make friendships
based on lies?

3. Give testimony to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, because
it is our duty to do so. Ultimately, Christ himself is the greatest
blessing that we could offer to our Muslim interlocutors. The 2002
Oxford Consultation on the Future of Anglicanism noted helpfully:
“Saint Paul uses dialogue and Saint Luke uses dialogomai to describe evangelism.
It may involve arguing, explaining, proving, proclaiming and persuading
(Acts 17:1-4, 17)” (see www.wycliffe.ox.ac.uk for the consultation reports).
It
is our hope that numbers of Muslims would be persuaded by the testimony
of Christians whom they encounter.

How can we persuade Muslims of the virtues of Christianity unless we start
and end by telling the truth?

4. Make sure that the Christians entering into
dialogue with Muslims have a firm grasp of an orthodox faith in the mainstream
of the Christian tradition. Since their faith may be challenged
and stretched in the dialogue, the Christian participants must know where
the heart of that faith lies and where its boundaries are. Churches
do no favor to the Muslims by sending out Christian “representatives” whose
own faith is uncertain, confused, self-contradictory, and unable to distinguish
between confessional essentials and their own idiosyncratic views.

This is coming from people like Ted Haggard who is obviously very confused
about the Christian faith. See our papers mentioned above for details.
He has made himself a "representative" of Christianity to the Muslims,
and yet does not stand up for the core doctrines of the Faith himself amongst
other Christians. Perhaps Haggard has found a kindred spirit among
the Muslims in view of his answers to us about his involvement in the ICA.

5. Endeavor to have the Christian side of the dialogue
represent not just the U.S. churches, but also the global Christian community.
It would be preferable to have persons in attendance who could address
Islam from an African or Asian Christian perspective—particularly Christians
who have lived as a minority group within predominantly Muslim nations.
If the presence of such persons is not possible, some means must be found
to keep their perspectives in mind. What cannot be permitted is
a situation that reduces Christian-Muslim dialogue to another “North-South”
confrontation, as if Christianity were equivalent to the “North” and Islam
to the “South.” In fact, we know that a growing proportion of
the world’s Christians live in the “South,” and millions of Muslims are
living in “North.” For this same reason, the Muslim side of any global
dialogue ought to include not only Muslims from predominantly Islamic developing
nations, but also Muslims who live as minorities in non-Muslim nations.

First of all, Muslims are not being left out of any "dialog". But
the differences between Islam and Christianity are not going to be solved
by "consensus", Praxis, Diaprax or the Hegelian Dialectic that these neo-evangelicals
love to employ these days. We ARE in a "North-South" conflict, and
it is a conflict over the very souls of men! Christians are not politicians.
We don't concern ourselves with "global dialog" and "world opinion".
Our worldview is based on the Bible, and we are firmly convinced that Jesus
is the only name under heaven by which men may be saved. We are not
going to negotiate that away so we can be "friendly" with anyone.
True believers will continue to tell the truth, no matter if it brings
hatred from the world, persecution or even death.

Matthew 24:9 "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted
and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me.John 15:18 "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it
hated me first.2 Timothy 3:12 In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly
life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,

Thanks to these "Johnny-come-latelys" of Christendom and their new ideas,
they are trampling on the graves of the martyrs who have brought the gospel
to many Muslims and died in the process. Not only that, they are
not helping those alive today who are living in persecution because of
their stand for the Truth of the Gospel against the lies of false religions.

6. Affirm some points of theology and morality
that Islam and Christianity have in common. These illustrate the
“natural law” or “common grace” that is revealed to all, as Paul argues
in Romans 1-2. This affirmation is particularly strategic, as
secularists in western societies often mischaracterize natural law principles
as narrowly Christian doctrines that do not belong in the public square.

First, what commonality can we have with a religion that allows it's people
to lie to gain converts? One can only assume they are talking about
the fact that Christianity and Islam both worship one God. But is
Allah the same as YHWH? It is perfectly clear that Allah
is not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Jesus Christ is not Allah's
son, according to the Quran. So how then can we have a dialog that
amounts to anything? We have almost nothing in common, except some
similar moral codes, as well as some very dissimilar ones. But even
those codes are tainted by their definition of Allah who is an angry, vengeful
false god.

Second, what is this "common grace" they are speaking of in Romans 1
& 2? There is no such thing. There is only one grace that
saves from hell, and that is the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ's death
on the cross accepted by faith. The Muslims are under the judgment
of God as long as they worship the false god Allah.

7. Address the deep differences between Islam and Christianity.
Most basically, these relate to the person of Jesus Christ, who is at the
center of our Christian faith. Muslims do not believe that he was
God incarnate, that he truly and willingly died on the cross, that his
death was the one atonement for all human sin, and that he was truly raised
from the dead for our eternal life. In addressing these differences,
Christians show themselves wiser and more winsome when they place their
emphasis on positive affirmations of their own Christian faith.
Negative judgments about Islamic beliefs and practices—although these are
sometimes necessary and are often implicit in the affirmations—should not
be the principal theme of the Christian participants in the dialogue.

This is a good example of Praxis. First the thesis is laid that we
should find common ground based on common grace. Then the antithesis
is laid that we also need to stand up for what we believe. Then the
Praxis is applied so that we can all come to the conclusions of people
like Ted Haggard in saying "Negative judgments about Islamic beliefs
and practices—although these are sometimes necessary and are often implicit
in the affirmations—should not be the principal theme of the Christian
participants in the dialogue." So we are led to the conclusion
that we cannot address the negative aspects of Islam in order to witness
to Muslims. But if Muslims are not shown that their belief is wrong
and Jesus Christ is the only Son of God, not just a prophet, then how does
that profit anyone? When we witness we don't just get all emotional
about what we believe so that others will catch our emotion. We also
deal with facts. The Third Wave method of evangelism slips through
on this point. Reinhard Bonnke just jumps up and down, yelling for
people to join him in his jumping and shout "Hallelujah" and the Holy Spirit
will enter their bodies. But since Bonnke has not dealt with the
facts and appealed to the reason of Muslims, how can they be saved?
Benny Hinn and others slay people "in the spirit" purporting to change
their lives. But true believers are to believe in the Lord Jesus
Christ and love Him with all our strength, body, mind and spirit.
We don't Gnostically get rid of the mind in order to believe, as Third
Wavers often teach and demonstrate. We have to deal with the issues
and "demolish arguments" just as Paul did.

2 Corinthians 10:5 We demolish arguments and every
pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we
take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

Paul spent his time arguing for the truth in the marketplaces and around
the pagan temples of his time. He made no bones about his stand for
Christ. He didn't sit down and have a "global dialog" with those
who worshipped Artemis. He preached the gospel, pointing out that
they were worshipping false gods.

Acts 19:26 And you see and hear how this fellow Paul
has convinced and led astray large numbers of people here in Ephesus
and in practically the whole province of Asia. He says that man-made
gods are no gods at all.

You cannot witness for Christ by only giving the positive. You also
have to explain the negative, the judgment of God.

8. Work together with some Muslims on certain public
issues in which we and they may have similar concerns (for instance, free
exercise of religion in the United States, opposition to abortion,
and promotion of refugee resettlement). We do so for the same reason
that Christians are prepared to work with Jews, Mormons, and even atheists
where we share common convictions about what justice requires.

How incredibly naive! Do Muslims work for free exercise of religion
in their countries? Why should they expect freedom of religion in
the US when they don't afford it to Christians in the places they control?
What kind of meaningful dialog can we have on this subject except to give
up territory to a false religion and false god?

9. Find ways in which our churches might practically
show the love of Christ by being of service to our Muslim neighbors, here
in the U.S. and internationally. We need to ask our Muslim interlocutors
about the needs in their communities.

Service is a good example. What is being ignored here is all the
work that missions have already done in this area. These people act
like they are the first ones to have this idea.

10. Discuss concepts of democracy, human rights, and
religious freedom, as promulgated in international covenants to which most
Muslim nations have subscribed. U.S. Christians should discuss
how we find these concepts in accord with our Christian faith, how western
societies developed these concepts historically, and the benefits that
they have brought our societies. We should encourage our Muslim
interlocutors to consider these concepts in the context of Islam, its history,
and their own personal experiences.'

Again, this has been done for decades. What good has it done?
Very little. Islamic people believe that their religion is the true
religion and the only one that will bring peace to the world. They
don't even like democracy, and have legitimate concerns over the evils
it has promoted worldwide, regardless of the good aspects. Why should
Christians be talking about our republican democratic ideas when our first
duty is to talk about Jesus Christ and His kingdom? Leave legislation
to politicians. We have another job to do.

11. Allow the open expression of concerns, fears,
and grievances regarding the other party in the dialogue. A dialogue
cannot advance very far unless it addresses the problems that each side
perceives in the other. U.S. Christians must expect to hear Muslim
complaints about the medieval crusades, modern western imperialism, and
contemporary American society. It is fair to acknowledge that some
of those complaints have validity. But it is neither historically
accurate nor helpful for the Christians to accept the notion that the West
is to be blamed for most of the ills in the Muslim world. Muslims
must take primary responsibility for their own societies, as the historian
Bernard Lewis argues.

I'm sure we will be hearing these complaints as long as Christians feel
they have to confess the sins of the past that they are not accountable
for. It does no good to do "reconciliation walks" because (1) those
atrocities are centuries in the past (2) Protestant evangelicals had nothing
to do with the crusades in the first place (3) when we confess these past
sins we are thereby taking responsibility for them in the eyes of the world,
thus associating ourselves with actions we had nothing to do with.
We can acknowledge complaints but we don't have to give credence to them.

12. Intercede for fellow Christians (and other religious
minorities) who suffer persecution or restriction in predominantly Muslim
nations. Particular concerns relate to bans on religious proselytism
or conversion, state attempts to restrict or control religious activities,
attempts to subject Christians to Islamic sharia, and other legal and political
structures that treat Christians as second-class dhimmi. Christians
should appeal to their Muslim interlocutors on the basis of reciprocity.
Christians in Muslim nations ought to enjoy the same freedoms that Muslims
do in the West. And as Christians commit themselves to safeguard
the liberties of Muslims in America, so we must challenge Muslims to ensure
religious freedom for Christians and other minorities in Muslim nations.

Now we are expecting a diplomatic solution to our ability to witness instead
of doing it regardless of the consequences. Did the early church
do this? Did they whine to the Roman authorities that they needed
to be accorded "freedom of religion"? People like Ted Haggard and
James Dobson on MSNBC the other night have clearly become politicians.
They are more concerned about playing the role of politicians in trying
to legislate morality than they are in teaching the basis for morality
from the Word. They want to be able to use the crutch of freedom
of religion to do evangelism. Where were these people in the 1800's
when much of the world was still unevangelized and there was no freedom
of religion except in Christian countries? I guess they would have
gone to the chiefs and heads of nations and worked out a "freedom of religion"
clause before they preached the Gospel. The reason this was not done
is because, when you negotiate terms for freedom of religion, you also
negotiate away the ability to make exclusivist claims. People have
been dying for their faith for decades among the Muslims. The results
have been slim but profound. Those who are Christians today, especially
those living in Islamic cultures, are true believers, firmly convinced
of their faith and ready to be persecuted for it. The type of converts
Haggard is seeking to make would be those who no longer have to make a
bold stand for their faith, can say they are "Messianic Muslims" and continue
to pray five times a day bowing toward Mecca and reading the Quran.

In Christian-Muslim dialogue, it is inappropriate and damaging
to:

1. Attempt to meld Christianity and Islam, pretending
that they have the same basic teachings and that the differences between
the two are merely trivial points of theology.

2. Aim to establish inter-faith organizations that embody a
new “macro-ecumenism,” joining Christians and Muslims in a unity analogous
to the unity of the Body of Christ. If Christians do participate
in inter-faith organizations, these should be merely forums for dialogue
and channels of limited cooperation – not bodies that pretend to a false
unity where none exists.

But this is exactly what Haggard and his Third Wave associates are promoting.
See these stories:

3. Try to formulate and celebrate common acts of worship.
As Christians who worship God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as instructed
by our Lord Jesus, we find any worship that omits those names and concepts
of God (offensive to Muslims) to be impoverished rather than enriched.
We do not wish to strip our worship down to the point that Muslims would
find it acceptable, nor do we require Muslims to reduce their worship to
a point that would be acceptable to Christians. It is better to worship
alongside Muslims, with them practicing what they consider to be proper
worship while we Christians observe, and vice versa, rather than trying
to have a common worship.

This is the rhetoric of politicians, not evangelicals. "Impoverished
rather than enriched"? Dead rather than alive would be more to the
point.

4. Expect that all blame for Christian-Muslim conflicts
can be assigned to parties in the dialogue. The conflicts are too
complicated and longstanding, and the dialogue too incomplete, for this
assumption to hold. As Paul Marshall observes, “The Muslims who
actually participate in dialogue are not usually the ones engaged in murder,
kidnapping, or the rape of Christian women” (Their Blood Cries Out,
p. 220). Likewise, an Eastern Orthodox or African Christian may not
feel personally culpable for the crusades or Western European imperialism.
Of course, Christians may express regret for abuses that other Christians
have committed against Muslims, as God convicts us of those abuses.
But we must not demand apologies from our Muslim interlocutors as the price
for dialogue, nor must they require apologies from the Christian participants
in the dialogue. We must not imagine that the differences between
Islam and Christianity can be reduced to particular clashes.

How does Paul Marshall know that those seeking dialog are not involved
in these types of things? Hasn't it been proven that some funding
for terrorism comes from the Mosques of those who pretend to be peaceful?

Isn't this a problem that has be be dealt with in order to have any
meaningful dialog about peace?

5. Speak of the world as if it were neatly divided
into spheres of influence, Muslim and Christian (and other), with no overlap
or movement between the spheres. As noted above, there are millions
of Christians in predominantly Muslim nations, and vice versa.
In a free society Christians can convert to Islam, and vice versa. We
cannot accept the notion that there is an “Islamic world” in which western
Christians have no right to “meddle.” And, of course, Muslims
have every right to be interested and involved in what goes on in western
nations.

If you can't accept this fact, then you are living in denial.

6. Talk only to elite Muslim scholars and religious officials
who present a “textbook version” of Islam. It may be even more
important to know the “popular Islam” as it is practiced on the street.
We may learn more, and have a more fruitful conversation, by going to the
local Muslim grocer than by going to the imam at the mosque.

Do we learn more from a Christian grocer than from a Christian theologian?
Only if that grocer has a deep understanding of the Bible. You can
have a "fruitful" (pun intended) conversation with your grocer, but his
understanding of his religion is probably not nearly as accurate or detailed
as someone who has studied the Bible for many years. Would you go
ask advice on what cut of meat to buy from a theologian? Then why
ask for the meaning of the Islamic religion from a grocer?

7. Play political games inside the Muslim community,
elevating leaders that we Christians favor and ignoring those that we dislike.
It
is not our place as Christians to determine who is and who is not an authentic
leader in the Muslim community. We should simply talk and cooperate
with all who will talk and cooperate. Naturally, some Muslims will
be more willing to talk and cooperate than others. It is likely that
our Muslim interlocutors will be more “moderate,” more tolerant, more interested
in democracy, human rights, and good relations with the West. And
it is undeniable that we would prefer to have such persons exercise more
influence within the Muslim community, for the sake of the values just
named. But our ability to boost them inside their own religious
community is, and should be, quite limited.

This is a strawman argument as far as I know. No one is determining
who is an authentic leader of Islam. It doesn't matter in any case.
What they believe is written in their Quran. We have absolutely no
ability to "boost" anyone to any position of authority in Islam, and why
would they even suggest such a scenario.

8. Assume that dialogue, in itself, is the solution
to the theological and political issues between Christians and Muslims.
Dialogue
may clarify the real issues and remove some imagined issues. It may
enable Christians and Muslims to work together more readily on matters
where cooperation is possible. Mutual ignorance is a problem between
Christians and Muslims; however, it is not the deepest problem. As
Paul Marshall remarks, “The [extreme Islamist] people engaged in persecution
are neither stupid nor uneducated…. We will not understand persecution
if we think it is a mere misunderstanding to be resolved through more education
and chatty conferences” (Their Blood Cries Out, p. 220). (Guidelines
for Christian-Muslim Dialogue, Alan Wisdom, May 7, 2003, The Institute
on Religion and Democracy)

This is another example of New Apostolic praxis. It is stated that
we should have dialog, but dialog only clarifies the issues. But
then again, we don't really want to tell the truth about the issues, so
we are only left with "schmoozing", eating together, patting each other
on the backs, saying nice things to one another, and compromising away
our core values. Paul Marshall actually has this one right.
More conferences will not help. So why bring this issue up at
all. Because the ICA wants to empower itself to speak on behalf
of evangelicals. Because Ted Haggard wants to assert his authority
in the NAE as quickly as possible, sending a message to everyone else in
the evangelical world that the rules and message have changed. Because
consensus is viewed as more important than truth.

Conclusion

When those who treat the truth as a means to an end get together, we
always see interfaith compromise instead of the carrying out of the Great
Commission. Evangelical goals have not changed, though some Third
Wave evangelical pretenders like Ted Haggard and the ICA are well on their
way to trying to introducing a "new paradigm" into evangelical circles.
The goal of true evangelicals is to win people to the Lord Jesus Christ.
This goal can only be accomplished by the Truth spoken and lived truthfully.

We can expect to see a lot more of this kind of leadership while a Latter
Rain "apostle" is at the helm of the NAE.